by Manfred Gerstenfeld. From Israel and Europe: An Expanding Abyss, 2005.

From 2001-2004, Trevor Asserson, a leading British litigation lawyer, has undertaken four well-documented studies detailing the BBC’s systematic bias against Israel. These may be found at www.bbcwatch.com. His methodology can also be used to analyze other media. Asserson says: “The BBC’s coverage of the Middle East is infected by an apparent, widespread antipathy toward Israel. This distorted media reporting creates an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism  can thrive.”

Asserson adds that the BBC’s monopoly derives from a legally binding contract with the British government. He defined the BBC’s fifteen legal obligations under its charter, which include, among others: fairness, respect for truth, due accuracy, attachment to fundamental democratic principles, not broadcasting their own opin­ ions on current affairs or public  policy, ensuring that opposing views are not misrepresented, and not letting the audience gauge reporters’ personal views. Asserson identified, however, many instances in which the BBC breached several of these guidelines, in some  cases even most.

Vilifying Israel

In July 2004, Asserson released bbcwatch’s fourth report. In it he analyzed all documentaries on the subject of the Middle East shown on BBC 1 and 2 from late 2000 to June 2004. He found that the BBC is conducting “what amounts to something equivalent to a campaign to vilify Israel, broadcasting a documentary critical of Israel every two to three months…88% of documentaries on the Israeli­ Palestinian conflict paint either a negative impression of Israel or (in two cases) a positive image of Palestinians.” Asserson also concluded that “there is a systemic problem with the BBC complaints system.”

In a report that appeared in June 2003,  “The BBC: The War on Iraq – An Analysis,” Asserson and Lee Kern analyzed BBC coverage during 3-18 April 2003, from when the war was a few days old until after the war had effectively ended. When comparing the BBC’s treatment of the coalition forces in Iraq with its coverage of Israeli army operations, the authors found “that the partiality of the BBC’s reporting quite possibly infects its coverage of all politically sensitive issues.”

Asserson says: “BBC’s news reports concerning Israel are distorted by omission, by inclusion, by only giving partial facts, by who is interviewed, and by the back­ ground information provided or lack of it. The only way to establish this factually was to do a proper forensic analysis.

“I thought the BBC should be analyzed because its significant influence on public opinion is combined with a unique obligation to produce ‘impartial’  news.  The BBC has a contract with the government that it must uphold. I wanted  to see to what  extent it was breaking its terms. I prepared my reports in the way in which a judge would expect the evidence to be presented  in  a court of law.”

Systematic Abuse of Language

In order to proceed with his inquiry, Asserson hired an assistant – at his own expense – to physically record the broadcasted material. He also assembled a number of lawyers and academics to form a BBC Watch Committee with whom he consults in preparing his reports. “We had to work out an objective and reasonable method to analyze the material, which is the most difficult challenge. We decided which news reports to record, and then tran­ scribed them so that we had a full written text of what was broadcast.”

Asserson then defined the different types of distor­ tions. For his first report, published in March 2002 and titled “The BBC and the Middle East: A Critical Study,” he and research assistant Elisheva Mironi  recorded  the bulk of BBC news output on TV, radio, and website for a seven-week period. For comparison, they simultaneously recorded reports from a variety of other sources. All programs were recorded consistently to avoid any allega­ tion that material had been analyzed on a selective or partial basis.

They concluded that the BBC was in frequent breach of the obligations of its charter and broadcasting license. For instance, it often showed partiality in its choice of language. “The BBC refused to label Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups as ‘terrorists,’ terming them ‘militants,’ ‘hard-liners,’ or ‘radicals’ instead. When suicide bombers killed twenty-six Israeli civilians in attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa, the word ‘terror’ was used by the BBC only when describing Israel’s retaliatory attacks on Palestinian targets.”

Asserson also describes the BBC’s abusive use of terms such as “occupied Palestinian land,” or “occupied Palestin­ ian territories,” as if the West Bank and Caza had ever belonged to an autonomous sovereign Palestinian entity. “The neu tral and accurate term is ‘disputed territories.’ The BBC also frequently used the adjective ‘presidential’ in connection with Chairman Arafat. This creates a mis­ leading impression as his title was Ra’ees (chairman), which was carefully chosen in the Oslo agreements to avoid lan­ guage implying statehood.”

Sharon versus Arafat

Asserson analyzed two extremely partial portraits  of Sharon and Arafat that had appeared on the BBC website but were removed after his first report was published. He writes about the BBC’s bias against Sharon: “Vitriolic com­ ment is passed off as fact or as unattributed quotation.” Asserson comments: “an unattributed comment implied Sharon uses unbridled violence. In fact, he operates under the glare of considerable international press presence, is answerable to an electorate, shares his cabinet with his political opponents, and is subject to a rule oflaw that has stripped him ofoffice in the past. It is implausible to suggest that he believes that any means are available to him.

“On the other hand, Arafat is described with terms such as heroism, selfless devotion to public duty, hard­ working, and having natural leadership talents, while Ar­ afat’s close involvement in organizing terrorist attacks is effectively overlooked.” Asserson says that the BBC ig­ nored findings of Human Rights Watch “that Arafat has ruled in a dictatorial manner, employing many separate police forces, and carrying out torture of detainees, arbit­ rary arrest,  prolonged  arbitrary  detention …executions after grossly unfair trials, [and failing] to bring justice to those responsible for vigilante killings.” He concludes that the BBC breaks its guidelines here, not only through its abusive use of language but also with its unbalanced re­ porting.

From the seven-week period analyzed, Asserson also brought seven examples of how the BBC frequently dis­ torts or masks the true facts. He showed, for instance, how when BBC correspondent Kylie Morris reports from Gaza on Israeli retaliatory actions, she omits the Israeli army’s claim that the buildings destroyed had been used for at­ tacking Israel. The BBC’s behavior on this subject was very different from that of other media sources that Asserson’ s assistant recorded for comparison.

 

Selective Material

Furthermore, Asserson shows how a factually accurate report can be partial and inaccurate by distorting its emphasis through the selection of material.  For  ex­ ample, on 12 December 2001, Palestinians attacked a civilian bus in the town of Emmanuel. Ten Israeli civil­ ians were killed and dozens were badly injured. In re­ taliation, Israel attacked a  Palestinian  police  station. There were no fatalities or serious casualties. BBC radio broadcasts reported briefly on the Palestinian attack, but went into very little detail about its sophistication and brutality. Despite the absence of serious casualties, the main focus of the BBC’s report was Israel’s retaliation, which was reported very dramatically, with graphic de­ tails describing Israel’s bombings that included a live account from  Gaza.

The BBC’s distortions of the truth concerning Israel take many other forms. When it quoted a study by Human Rights Watch which found that Palestinians severely tor­ tured their prisoners, the BBC chose to conceal that aspect of the report – which was highly critical of the Palestinians – by seeking to deflect the criticism onto Israel and even to blame Israel for Palestinian shortcomings. In another distortion, the BBC website omitted to mention the exis­ tence of virulent racist material put out by institutional Arab government-controlled organs.

Asserson also randomly selected the nine weeks from the end of May to the end of July 2002 to see whether the BBC had changed its  ways  after  his  first  report was published. This period began six weeks after the highly publicized battle in Jenin  and  three  weeks  after the end of the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. In Asserson’s December 2002 report, “The BBC and the Middle East: An Analysis,” he found that while the BBC  had  addressed  some  of  the  complaints in  his  first  report,  it  had  not  dealt with  most  of  them.

 

He concluded that the BBC’s reporting on the Middle East remained partial, inaccurate, and  in frequent breach of its guidelines.

Using Irrelevant Pictures, Correspondents Giving Their Own Views

Asserson’s second study found that also in this period Arafat was described as “a hero, an icon, clever and respect­ able, and having charisma and style.” He was once again inaccurately described as president. A brief reference was made to his nepotism and bribery, but none was made to his acts of intimidation, torture, unlawful killings, and manipulation  of the court system and the press.

In this period, the BBC inter alia mentioned an obscure tale that international aid agencies had accused Israel of obstructing their operations to the point that they could no longer fulfill their mandates. Asserson tried to verify it. Two major NGOs that the BBC mentioned in the story

– Oxfam and Doctors without Borders – did not have it on their websites, nor did they reply substantively to inquiries by Asserson.

Asserson adds: “The BBC also failed to respond to a letter seeking further information. We were unable  to verify even the existence of the American Near East Relief Agency that was mentioned in one of the BBC pieces. Other comparative news sources did not mention the story at all.” Asserson observed the story might well have been fabricated and certainly was given undue prominence.

What the BBC Ignores

Says Asserson: “The thing that I did not include in my report, which I probably should have, is the impressive record Israel has for protecting human rights. This is entirely ignored by the BBC. Many examples can be given. For instance, the number  of cases in which individual human rights are taken through the procedure  of order nisi to Israel’s Supreme Court, and the way it protects individuals. Any democracy would be proud to have such a legal history of protection of individual rights. When one looks at the political context of daily violence against the civilian population in which these decisions are being made, it is even more remarkable.

“I do not think there has ever been a democratic coun­ try that can begin to compare with the decisions that the Israeli Supreme Court has made, under  the pressures  in which it finds itself. This is a completely positive area about Israel that is totally ignored by the BBC and many others. “On  the  Palestinian   side,  matters   that   have  been ignored  include  major  issues such as Palestinian  educa­ tion,  which  is  training  people  to  hate. Another  area  is several  Palestinian  movements’  aims to  eradicate  Israel. They  are  not  concerned  with  territories.  What  Islamic Jihad and  Barnas  say is that their  aim is to destroy the whole of the state oflsrael. In fact, it is to kill Jews wherever they are.”

In his second report, Asserson also gives much atten­ tion to the BBC’s multiple omissions of relevant back­ ground material. He brings proof that the BBC fails to give adequate prominence to many important topics that would give a negative image of the Palestinians,  and adds: “Israeli leaders were often criticized for failing to speak to Arafat. When it is understood that those leaders had credible evidence to believe that Arafat was a corrupt despot who supported groups that wish to destroy Israel, train children to hate Israel,  and  actually  attack  Israel, the reluctance to talk to Arafat becomes at least compre­ hensible.”

Sympathy for the Coalition in Iraq, None for Israel

In Asserson’s third report, he compared the BBC’s re­ porting on British soldiers in Iraq with that on Israeli troops in the conflict with the Palestinians. A major con­ trast emerged in the BBC’s reporting on these two topics. In Iraq: “Coalition troops are described in warm and glowing terms, with sympathy being evoked for them both as individuals and for their military predicament. In con­ trast, Israeli troops are painted as faceless, ruthless, and brutal killers, with little or no understanding shown for their actions.

“The BBC goes to considerable lengths to explain, excuse, and mitigate any civilian deaths at the hands of coalition troops. Israeli troops receive totally different treatment; little sympathy is shown for their situation, and mitigating arguments are brushed aside or scorned, if voiced at all. At times, the reporting of events in Israel amounts to distortion, and at other times to what appears to be discrimination against Israel.”

Asserson and Kern devote an entire section to what they call “mitigation.” “When coalition culpability is con­ ceded, efforts are made to excuse, explain, and evenjustify the loss of civilian life.” On the other hand, “when an Israeli weapon causes civilian death, the BBC is quick to criticize and slow to explain, excuse, or indeed show any significant level of understanding of the military difficult­ ies faced by Israel.” The report gives tens of examples of such mitigation as far as coalition forces are concerned, while the “BBC’s reporting oflsraeli troops, far from seek­ ing to displace blame, goes out of its way to ensure that blame is ascribed.”

Suicide Bombings, Checkpoints, and Targeted Strikes

Asserson wrote that the same bias is shown in the matter of suicide attacks. “A suicide attack against U.S. marines is described by the BBC as an act of terrorism. An attack in Israel is the work of a militant. In fact, the BBC has a practice of describing suicide attacks as terrorism in almost every situation in the world, except where  the victim is an Israeli.” Furthermore, “the BBC appears to consider Hamas suicide bombers as laudable. It refers to such people as martyrs, without putting the word in inverted commas.”

Concerning the coalition troops in Iraq, “the BBC ex­ plains the advisability of using checkpoints … .They are presented as a logical and reasonable response to the threat of suicide-bombers and unconventional attacks.” However, “the BBC seeks to garner antipathy for Israeli checkpoints by stressing the inconvenience caused to civil­ ians.” The authors conclude: “A tremendous amount of energy goes into humanizing coalition checkpoints, in con­ trast to Israeli checkpoints which are demonized.” Once again, many examples are provided.

Asserson and Kern show how widespread the BBC bias is by offering a substantial number of widely diverse examples. “The British and Americans used  targeted strikes against supposed Iraqi leadership targets. These strikes are explained, justified, and mitigated by the BBC. When Israel uses them, it is often criticized …and vilified for any collateral damage that arises.”

Bush’s Speech does not Fit the BBC’s Agenda

Asserson mentions another example of the BBC creating news instead of reporting it: “On 24 June 2002, President Bush gave a major speech in which he did not mention Arafat. It was a watershed in American policy. He indicated that American policy was going to align with Israel in viewing Arafat as someone they no longer believed could contribute to the peace process.

“Other media covered it that way. The BBC did not because it did  not  fit their  agenda. They  tried  to cover it as a speech that criticized Israelis and Palestinians equally. In this way, they  developed  a  story  that  was the opposite of the truth.  In reality,  Bush did not make a  balanced   attack  but   a  one-sided   one.  The  speech contained twenty-eight paragraphs, of  which  nineteen were devoted to calls for reform of the Palestinian lead­ ership and institutions. It issued a sustained attack on them, saying inter alia: ‘Palestinian leaders are compro­ mised by terror …[have] no authority …power is concen­ trated in the hands of an unaccountable few…Palestinian people live in economic stagnation  made worse by offi­ cial corruption …the Palestinian people  lack  effective courts of law and have no means to defend and vindic­ ate their rights…Palestinian authorities  are encouraging, not opposing terrorism …the Palestinian Authority has trafficked  with  terrorists.’

“The speech contained only two or three paragraphs that criticized Israeli policy. It appeared on the White House website under the title ‘President Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership.’ Nothing the BBC reported was wrong, but through their manipulations they created news about what they wanted to have happened instead of what actually happened.”

Such news manufacturing goes even deeper. Asserson recorded instances of the BBC reporting occasions on which President Bush, the United Nations, Prime Minister Blair, and Sharon have each criticized Palestinian “terror­ ists.” Yet on each occasion the BBC misreports them as having criticized Palestinian “militants.” Asserson says: “This shows both an astonishing disregard for the truth and  contempt  for  their  audience.”

Appointing an Ombudsman

“In November 2003 the BBC suddenly created a senior editorial post to advise on its Middle East coverage – an unprecedented appointment. A former editor of the BBC’s 9 o’clock news, Malcolm Balen, was selected.

At a 2004 meeting with Balen and with Richard Sambrook – then head of BBC News – Sambrook said that my reports had been one of the reasons behind the decision to appoint Balen. Observers also attribute this appointment to several other factors: the Israeli govern­ ment’s temporary refusal to cooperate with the BBC  in 2003; the emergence, during the Hutton inquiry, of  the many  shortcomings   on   its   reporting   of  the   Iraq   war; as well as the Daily Telegraph’ s running  – over  two months – of the ‘Beebwatch’ column scrutinizing BBC reporting.

“It had also become known that during the Iraq War the British sailors aboard their  flagship  aircraft  carrier, the Ark Royal , refused to listen to the BBC because it was so biased. There were also constant complaints from other sources that have helped to trouble the BBC.

“The appointment of Balen was unprecedented within the BBC and a tacit acceptance that it is failing in its coverage of the Middle East.” Asserson said at the time in an interview published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that he was concerned that Balen would not be effective. He was answerable to the BBC head of news, appeared to have no real independence from the BBC, and told Asserson that he had not been asked to produce a report. In fact, after a year in the job, Balen did produce a report, but it has been concealed from the public.

Asserson was not impressed. “The BBC is a publicly funded body. It has sought to avert criticism of its Middle East broadcasting by appointing Balen amid much fanfare, and with public funds. To keep his conclusions from the paying public under such circumstances is scandalous and strongly indicates both that Balen’s appointment was merely a public relations exercise and that the BBC has things to hide. The BBC  would be the first to criticize such behavior  in any other state or institution.”

Anti-Israeli Feeling is Rife

Asserson adds: “In private conversations with senior BBC journalists,  we have been  told  that anti-Israeli feeling is rife within the BBC. When I put this allegation to Sam­ brook, he became very agitated. He was unable to show that he had any information whatever on the personal beliefs of his own journalists, which seemed a serious omission. Yet he insisted that anti-Israeli feeling was not rife among his staff because ‘this is the BBC and I am the head of news’ – a rather  unconvincing  argument. He threatened to terminate our meeting if  I  did  not drop the point.

“This refusal even to consider  the  potential  validity of criticism is typical of the BBC. On the basis of my interviews with serving BBC journalists and those  who have recently left, Israel is a hated state by many in the organization. Anybody who has a different view has great difficulty being heard or  getting his  story out. I would not be surprised if that extends to the point where some people there think that Israel  should  not  exist, because that is now the position taken by some detractors  of Israel. Indeed the revelation that one BBC  reporter  in Gaza is probably a Hamas member supports this suspi­ cion. It would,  however, be naive  to think  that  there is a stated, written BBC policy  to be anti-Israeli. There is no such thing as an unspoken Protocols of the Elders of Palestine in the BBC, whereby senior members of the Board of Governors say: ‘Let’s be anti-Israeli, but don’t write  that  down.’

“In the BBC’s anti-Israeli atmosphere, the system works informally. It is full of reporters holding left-wing, so-called ‘liberal’ viewpoints, including very negative ones about Israel. They then recruit people under them who have a similar outlook. In this way, the liberal left-wing system propagates itself.

“Our own analysis of its output is consistent with this. There are other proofs as well. The name of a BBC journ­ alist, Ian Haddow, signed in his private capacity, was found on an email petition against Israel. He had added  the words ‘save us from Israel’ after his name.”

 

A Danger to British Democracy

 Asserson thinks the British government should either not renew the BBC Charter, which comes due in 2005, or at the very least should insist on significant structural changes to make news content accountable to an external review system. “The British public pays a license fee to the BBC to receive impartial news coverage. The BBC is paid for by the government and all people in England who own a television set, whether they choose to watch the BBC or not.

“This unelected, monopolistic, and uncontrolled body, which is at the heart of British society, seemed to be more powerful than the elected government when it appeared to try to topple the latter by apparently inventing news about the decision to enter the Iraq war. Whereas the government is accountable to an electorate, the BBC is accountable to no one. The Hutton report suggests  that the BBC invented a story that Blair  deliberately misled the House of Commons. It was only because a scientist committed suicide that there was an inquiry, which re­ vealed  the  truth.

“What is insidious is that the BBC enjoys the hallmark of fair play and reasonableness because  as an institution it is ‘approved’ by the British government. This cloak of fairness allows it to take a range of partial political stances in its broadcasting in an almost surreptitious way. Yet the BBC is not really accountable to anybody. Were its charter taken away, it would become just another independent newscasting operation that happens to be filled with a significant sprinkling of Israel-haters and other biased people, jostling for market position with all the other ped­ dlers of particular prejudices. But with its charter in place it remains financially inviolable.

“With a $6 billion subsidy from the British people, no independent regulator, a government terrified of confronting it, and with no effective control in the courts beyond such matters as taste and decency, the BBC poses a real threat to the democratic system. It has vastly more access to and therefore more influence on the minds of the British people – and of people in 152 countries around the globe – than any other news organization. It is unhealthy for any democratic country to give such power to influence people’s views to a huge and unregu­ lated organization, particularly one that has shown itself incapable of using that power in a fair and unbiased manner.”

Legitimizing Aggression

On the basis of his findings, Asserson claims that the BBC has been demonizing Israel, which could assist in turning it into a pariah state. He adds: “It is not fanciful to contem­ plate that, by portraying Israel in an unfairly negative light, the BBC unwittingly legitimizes – and therefore en­ courages – aggression not only against Israelis but also against UK Jewish citizens. That does not necessarily ex­ press itself only in violence; discrimination in the academic world is another example of the fruits of such prejudice. “It is highly likely that the BBC’s campaign against Israel has an effect on Jews in the UK. Jews and Israelis are closely associated in the minds of many Western people. There was a 400% increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK in October 2000, following the start of the Palestinian uprising and its concomitant extremely hostile coverage by the BBC.

“One cannot say that this isjust a coincidence. In West­ ern literature, the most famous book is the Bible, which connects Jews closely with Israel in the Western mind. It is also not wrong for people in the West to assume that a Jew will support Israel, which they do with a small percent­ age of exceptions.  For  decades, Arab hate literature has not drawn any significant distinction between Israelis and Jews. Criticism oflsrael is legitimate. But those who think that  such criticism  does not affect  the  standing of Jews outside  Israel are fooling themselves.”

Asserson concludes: “My studies, along with others, show conclusively that the BBC is not capable ofliving up to its charter. Accordingly, I think the BBC has lost its legitimacy as a broadcasting body that deserves support through taxation. It remains for the British people to take the message on board and to elect a government with a mandate to curb this potentially dangerous and uncontrolled organization.”